REVIEW ARTICLE
Monumenta Serica
42 (1994): 521-529
THE WHITE LOTUS TEACHINGS
HUBERT SEIWERT
Review of B[AREND] J. TER HAAR, The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious
History. Sinica Leidensia 26. Leiden/New York/Köln: E. J. Brill, 1992„ XIV, 343 pp.
7 maps. Gld. 170. US$ 97.25. ISSN 0169-9563. ISBN 90-04-09414-8 (cloth)
During the last two decades the study of Chinese popular religion and sectarianism
has becomc a major subject of Western scholars in Chinese religion. Whilc before
the l 970s the field has been more or less a domain of Japanese and - to a lesser
degree - Chinese scholars, the works of Richard Chu and particularly of Daniel
Overmyer and Susan Naquin have directed the attention of Western readers and
researchers to this subject. 1 Above all the study of Ming and Qing sectarianism has
made tremendous progress through the opening of two kinds of formerly neglected
sources, i.e., the official documents stored in archives in Taiwan and mainland
China, and the baojuan 17f 1.f (Precious Scrolls) scriptures used by the various sects.
Many valuable studies on certain aspects of Ming and Qing popular religions have
been published since, but Overmyer's study of 1976 still remained the only monograph trying to put these phenomena into the !arger context of Chinese religious
history since the Song. Time seems ripe, therefore, for a new synthesis based on the
state of the art.
Ter Haar's study on The White Lotus Teachings in Chinese Religious History
only partly fills this gap. The title is somewhat misleading, since actually the author
does not want to write a history of the White Lotus Teachings, but rather a history
of their perception by the Chinese literati and officials (and, in a certain sense, by
modern scholars). The main thesis of the author is that the name "White Lotus
Teachings" (Bailian jiao f':l ;IB ,r)C) during the Ming and Qing dynasties was not an
autonym used by the religious groups themselves, but rather a labe! used by the
literati and officials to stigmatize these religious groups as heterodox. He shows that
many instances of so-called White Lotus rebellions in the late Yuan and early Ming
received this labe! only in much later sources (after 1525), while contemporary
sources did not mention the name White Lotus (p. 168).
Yung-deh Richard Chu, "An Introductory Study of the White Lotus Sect in Chinese History with
Special Reference to Peasant Movements." Ph. D. diss„ Columbia University, 1967. Daniel Overmyer, Folk Buddhist Religion. Dissenting Sects in Late Traditiona/ China. (Harvard East Asian Series
83.) Cambridge, Mass. 1976. Susan Naquin, Millenarian Rebellion in China. The Eight Trigrams
Uprising of 1813. New Haven/London 1976.
522
HUBERT SEIWERT
Ter Haar's second thesis is that the "old-style" White Lotus movement, which
was founded by the monk Mao Ziyuan !f.~f Jt (1086/88-1160), should be regarded
as being part of the wider Buddhist lay movement, which is weil documented for the
Lower Yangzi region during the Song dynasty (Chapter II). From the point of
doctrine these lay groups were more or less in accord with officially recognized
Buddhist teachings, although they were occasionally criticized by Buddhist writers
and govcrnmcnt officials. The White Lotus Society represented one important elemcnt within this lay Buddhist tradition, which can be easily identified by the use of
certain religious affiliation characters that were part of the religious names of its
members (pp. 39-41). The White Lotus lay Buddhists were active also during the
Yuan dynasty, they had thcir own temples and were usually respected by the rest of
the socicty (Chapter III).
The third thesis concerns the fate of the White Lotus movement after the fall
of the Yuan. Ter Haarshows that the name "White Lotus" was turned into a labe)
applied to groups regarded as heterodox, while the lay Buddhist groups which
actually stood in the tradition of the old-style White Lotus stopped using this name
as an autonym. However, the author argues, the tradition of White Lotus lay Buddhism was continued by other groups with different names, particularly by what he
calls the "Non-Action movement" founded by Luo Qing itlU~f (1443-1527).
Bcsides these points, which in my view are the most important theses of ter
Haar's book, the author deals with a great variety of other questions which cannot
easily be summarized. There is a significant shift in the emphasis given to certain
aspects throughout the book. While the chapters two, three, and partly also chapter
four give much importance to the reconstruction and description of religious groups
and movements which in some way or another are related to the White Lotus
movement from the Song to the early Ming, in chapters five to eight the sectarian
groups of the Ming and Qing dynasties which are commonly regarded as representing the "new-style" White Lotus are not treated in detail. Instead, the author illustratcs with some cases how the labe! "White Lotus Teachings" was applied to
religious groups which had nothing at all in common with the old-style White Lotus
movcment and which, by the way, did not belong to the historically more important
sectarian traditions of the Ming and Qing.
Ter Haar uses an impressive amount of Chinese sources, including local gazetteers and epigraphical materials. This is especially true for his treatment of the Song,
Yuan, and Ming dynasties, while he seems to be less familiar with the sources for
Qing sectarianism. He makes good use of the Japanese, Chinese and Western secondary literature and offers an extensive bibliography. This is certainly a work of
profound scholarship which significantly contributes to the history of Chinese religions since the Song.
In a work of such a broad scope, which includes many new interpretations and
hypotheses, it is unavoidable that some of the arguments will be disputed by other
THE WHITE LOTUS TEACHINGS
523
students of the field. 1 shall concentrate on three points which to me seem open to
discussion.
1
The first point concerns ter Haar's interpretation of the White Lotus movement
prior to the Ming. He makes some efforts to show that the White Lotus movement
of the Song and Yuan was a clearly identifiable Buddhist lay movement. He is
probably right in opposing the traditional view held by many scholars that during
the Yuan-Ming transition this White Lotus society, as founded by Mao Ziyuan,
changed from a devotionalist passive movement with the autonym White Lotus
Society into a millenarian rebellious movement with the autonym White Lotus
Teachings (p. 114). He does not consider, however, a further possibility, namely
that there existed religious groups which did not have much in common with Mao
Ziyuan's White Lotus Society, but nevertheless used the name White Lotus as an
autonym. Ter Haar himself mentions two cases. One is Han Shantong's ~i:'f Lll 111
grandfather who, during the Yuan dynasty, was banished "on the basis [of membership] of the Bai/ian hui, burning incense and bringing people in confusion" (p. 118).
The other dates from the early Ming, when the monk Peng Yulin !iJJS:.f,jf called
himself Patriarch Buddha Maitreya and organized a Bailian hui (p. 136). Both cases
seem to have had nothing in common with the old White Lotus Society except
for the name White Lotus. In both cases belief in Maitreya is evident. Religious
groups of this kind represent exactly the type of sects which were later labelled
Bai/ian jiao. What prevents us from assuming that it was this kind of groups
Luo Qing and other writers had in mind when they criticized the White Lotus
Teaching?
Maybe ter Haar has not gone far enough in his removing of traditionally held
conceptions about the White Lotus Movement. Maybe he is too much captivated by
the idea that the White Lotus Society founded by Mao Ziyuan was a more or less
orthodox Buddhist lay movement and remained so until the early Ming.Tobe sure,
there certainly was a kind of White Lotus movement in the sense ter Haar describes
it, at least until the 14th century. But does that really imply that a 11 cases, where the
name White Lotus is used, refer to the same kind of religious groups? The author
makes an effort to explain why during the Yuan dynasty the monk Pudu trvJt, as a
defender of the "orthodox" White Lotus movement, opposes certain practices of
religious leaders "who fraudulently call themselves by the name White Lotus"
(p. 100). 2 Obviously Pudu wanted to draw a sharp line between the kind of religious
groups he was criticizing and his own understanding of the White Lotus movement.
2 Cf. Pudu, "Lushan fujiao ji" M!JlJiY:.tX:!t, in: Yang Ne !!J,11~ (ed.), Yuandai Bailian jiao zi/iao
huibian )[; f\:: ~ j.ß .tX: ft 'fj~ ~ (Beijing 1989), p. 184.
n
524
HUBERT SEIWERT
But why should we not believe him that there actually existed other groups which
used the same name? Is that not much more probable than ter Haar's hypothesis
that Pudu had introduced the religious leaders he was going to castigate for rhetorical reasons (p. 99f.)?
1 do not think the evidence provided is sufficient to suppose that after Mao
Ziyuan therc was only one tradition which used the name White Lotus as an
autonym. If the White Lotus Society enjoyed some reputation among the populace,
would that not tempt some other religious leaders to use the same name in order to
boost their own teachings? After all, the name White Lotus had not been invented
by Mao Ziyuan and could be adopted by anyone who wanted to do so. Furthermore, thc White Lotus movement, as described by ter Haar, was no centralized
organization, but in the l 3th and 14th centuries continued in a number of cloisters
which were hereditarily owned by certain families. That is certainly not the kind of
organization Mao Ziyuan had founded, although it is very similar to some of the
sect organizations in the same geographical area during the Qing. That is, even
before the Ming dynasty the White Lotus movement and the various groups belonging to it underwent some changes which allowed for disparate developments in
some of the groups. Pudu may also have referred to some of the results of these (in
his view) distorted developments.
1 am, therefore, not totally convinced that until the early Ming the autonym
"White Lotus" was applied exclusively by "orthodox" Buddhist lay groups. What
ter Haar calls "new style White Lotus" may in fact be traditions which already
existed prior to the Ming, even ifthe name White Lotus was used only occasionally.
Thc point can be illustrated with the famous rebellion of Han Shantong at the
end of the Yuan, which later came to be regarded as the earliest example of "new
style White Lotus." Ter Haar demonstrates convincingly that the name "White
Lotus" was not used by the members of the group, nor does it occur in the sources
before the sixteenth century (pp. 115-123). Furthermore, the Maitreyan messianism, which was part of Han Shantong's teachings, shows clearly that they derived
from other traditions than the "old style White Lotus." 1 fully agree with ter Haar's
conclusion that the Han Shantong uprising can, therefore, not be regarded as a case
of White Lotus rebellion. This is without any doubt an important statement. But it
does not allow us to conclude that prior to the Ming the White Lotus movement as
a whole was unaffected by Maitreyan messianism. Ter Haar himself notes that
among the generals of Xu Shouhui ff; „:,i :tJl, who revolted at the same time as Han
Shantong, there were many generals who used the religious affiliation characters
that were characteristic of the White Lotus Society (p. 126), and he admits that this
movement derived much of its attraction from Maitreyism (p. 128). lt is difficult not
to conclude that by the late Yuan the original White Lotus society had already lost
its homogeneity and developed into a variety of groups many of which had adopted
beliefs and practices which were not present in Mao Ziyuan's original teachings. Ter
HIE WHITE LOTUS TEACHINGS
525
Haar seems to overemphasize the continuity and unity of thc tradition and to ncglect the changes and diversities.
2
This brings me to my second point, the alleged continuance of the White Lotus Iay
Buddhist movement until the Qing dynasty under a new name. One of the main
assumptions of ter Haar's study concerns what he calls the "Non-Action movement"3 ( Wuwei jiao J!\l; {,';~tz) of Luo Qing. The author remarks, that "therc are
several indications that adherents of the earlier [White Lotus] movement (in whatever form it had survived) may indeed have been absorbed by this new movcmcnt.
Adherents of Luo Qing's teachings, in the Lower Yangzi region, uscd thc samc
religious affiliation characters and personal autonyms as the adhcrents of thc old
style White Lotus movement" (p. 204). After discussing some further aspects of the
"Non-Action movement," ter Haar concludes: "The Non-Action movcment of Luo
Qing and his lay followers can, therefore, be seen as further developmcnt in thc Iay
Buddhist tradition, rather than as a radical break with it" (p. 208).
The Non-Action movement is the main argument for the author's thesis, that
there was a considerable degree of continuity between the Buddhist lay movement
of the Song and Yuan on the one hand and of the Ming and Qing on the other. In
his final chapter he even asserts that "many aspects of thc White Lotus movement
[ ... ] were actually continued by the Non-Action movement, which can be traced
back as an independent tradition to the Five Books in Six Volwnes by Luo Qing.
lt has been asserted that the Iater Non-Action movemcnt also incorporatcd thc
Maitreyist Eternal Venerable Mother mythology, but this is by no means clear from
the sources. Jf true, it would seriously weaken my claim that there were any co11ti1111ities [italics mine, H.S.]. As late as the nineteenth and twenticth centurics, howcvcr,
we can find many groups in this tradition which did not share this Maitreyan mytho!ogy and still used the Five Books in Six Volumes" (p. 291 ).
1 do not know why ter Haar gives that much weight to this point. Thc matter
is rather intricate but I am afraid that the author's conclusions conccrning the
'
Non-Action movement cannot be sustained. First of all, what cxactly docs hc mcan
by the "Non-Action movement"? Of course, it should be the English translation of
Wuweijiao, which was the name of the religious group founded by Luo Qing. The
name also occurs in Iater sources at least until the 19th century. Howcver, in most
if not all of the cases mentioned by ter Haar to support his point that thc NonAction movement was a continuation of the White Lotus lay Buddhist tradition, the
3 Ter Haar usually refers to religious groups and to sources by using English translations of the
names. This makes it sometimes difficult to identify the Chinese original, which is given only when
first mentjoning it. I would have preferred the other way around.
526
I
HUBERT SEIWERT
name Wuwei jiao is not reported. Ter Haar considers them as belonging to the
Non-Action movement probably because they made use of the Wubu liuce li f,1i :t;; Jfü
(Five Books in Six Volumes) and regarded Luo Qing as their patriarch. Obviously
the author assumes that all religious groups with these features continued the teachings of Luo Qing and can, therefore, be taken to illustrate the characteristics of the
Wuwei jiao. The "Non-Action movement" would then be another term for what
other authors have called the "Luo-sects."
lt may weil be that after the Ming dynasty there were some sects which continucd the original teachings of Luo Qing as they were written down in the Wubu
liuce. In that case they could hardly be considered as a continuation of the "oldstyle" White Lotus lay Buddhists, since these stood in the Pure Land tradition and
advocated among others the recitation of the name of the Buddha Amitäbha, a
practice which Luo Qing in his scriptures explicitly repudiates as useless. After all,
his teachings were called Wuweijiao because he advocated a kind of religious cultivation that did not rely on (ritual) action.
However, all Qing cases of the "Non-Action movement" referred to by
ter Haar do not belong to this "pure" tradition of Luo Qing's teachings, even if they
revered Luo Qing and his writings. Without realizing it, ter Haar consecutively
refers only to one particular sectarian tradition whose connection with Luo Qing's
original Wuwei jiao is rather obscure. The tradition in question is the one founded
by Yao Wenyu l.dt::t-=f (1578-1646) which in the early 18th century came tobe
known by the name Laoguan zhaijiao of'.:'Ef fJ,rx (Old Officials Vegetarian Teaching). Laterit was simply called Yao men f.dUnl (Yao sect), because the leadership was
handed down among members of the Yao family. The sect originated in the
Zhejiang, Fujian, and Jiangxi regions, but in the l 9th century was known also in
other provinces.
Since the hagiography of the sect founder, Yao Wenyu, and his two alleged
precursors, Luo Qing and Yin Ji'nan ®'. Wf rYJ, has been transmitted, we know for
certain that the teachings of the Yao sect included the belief in Maitreya and in
Wusheng Laomu J!(f; ~t ~ HJ. 4 lt is this same sectarian tradition of the Yao family to
which the Chongming manlu MJi.~f.~r!Zi!fe, a text of the late 19th century, refers. Thus,
ter Haar is not right in citing the Chongming manlu as a proof for his claim, that "as
late as the nineteenth and twentieth centuries [ ... ] we can find many groups in this
tradition which did not share this Maitreyan mythology" (p. 291). 5
4 The text in question is the Taishang wshi sanshi yinyou -)( l: ID (:r]i :=: ill: [J~ Lll (Origins of the Most
Exalted Patriarchs of Three Generations), first printed in 1682. Reference to Wusheng Laomu, the
three kalpas and Maitreya in part two, pp. 29a-30a. For details on the sect founded by Yao Wenyu,
see my article, "Popular Religious Sects in South-East China: Sect Connections and the Problem of
the Luo Jiao/Bailian Jiao Dichotomy," in: Journal of Chinese Religions 20 (Fall 1992), PP· 33-60,
esp. pp. 34-42.
5 Ter Haar fails to realize that the "Non-Action movement" which flourished in the Lower Yangzi
THE WHITE LOTUS TEACHINGS
527
However, not only the Yao family's version of the Luozu jiao fä11Jlli :tx (Teaching of Patriarch Luo) or "Non-Action movement" had adopted the belief in Maitreya and Wusheng Laornu, but also other sects which in the early ninetccnth ccntury still used the autonym Wuwei jiao. In a memorial reporting the case of a Qing
jing Wuwei jiao Nt ~'Ji 1!\f; ~~X (Pure and Serene Teaching of Non-Action), which can
clearly be identified as belonging to the tradition of Luo Qing, two scripturcs arc
mentioned that contained, among others, teachings about Wusheng Laomu, the
White yang S ~Jh and the Red yang H~J)i (i.e., the last two kalpas) and about Maitreya, "who will hold the apex and (has been? will be?) secretly born." 6 Here we
have all the elements which were characteristic for most of the Maitreya sects during
the Qing, which shows that ter Haar's interprctation of the Non-Action movcmcnt
as basically a continuation of pre-Ming lay Buddhism can hardly be maintained.
3
My third point also concerns ter Haar's interpretation of Ming and Qing sectarianism and the question of their place in Chinese religious history. The author is
right in pointing out that there are no clear-cut lines which allow us to distinguish
between "heterodox" and "orthodox" religious groups. lt is true that in many cases
religious groups which belonged to traditions considered as heterodox by the
authorities not only conceived themselves as being devout Buddhists, but were also
regarded by outsiders as such. And 1 agree "that for a sociological interpretation of
meditation and sutra-recitation groups, it is necessary to look outside thc confines
of the traditional White Lotus interpretation" (p. 298).
However, the author seems to be somewhat biased in his interpretations by
laying the emphasis exclusively on the affinities, that indubitably existed bctween
region in the l 7th and l 8th centuries was headed by the Yao family and is therefore the samc as the
Luozujiao fillilITln mentioned in the Chongming manlu. Incidently, this lapse dcrivcs from a rnisprint
in an article of Susan Naquin's on which ter Haar relies ("The Transmission of Whitc Lotus
Sectarianism in Late Imperial China," in: David Johnson, Andrew J. Nathan, Evelyn S. Rawski
[eds.): Popular Culwre in Late Imperial China [Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University ofCalifornia Press, 1985), pp. 255-291, p. 264 and note 24 where Patriarch Yao [i.e„ Yao Wenyu] is twicc
misprinted as "Patriarch Chao" [c.f. ter Haar, p. 204 note 17)). By the way, two other rcferences
which are cited by ter Haar in note 2 on page 291 to support his staternent that as late as the
nineteenth century many groups ofthe Non-Action rnovement did not share the Maitreyan rnythology (Overmyer, pp. 124-127, and Shek, pp. 225-226) do not really support this view. Thc fourth
6
reference (Luo 1962) I was not able to check.
Zlzupi zouzhe !lttlt~Jfr, Jiaqing );(;I~ 21-5-27 (1816), mernorial by Bai Ling !'l~il and Yang Hu
t-l1 rta (China First Historical Archives, Beijing). The two texts referred to are called lluangji fing
5HUfil (Sutra of the Imperial Apex) and lluanxiang juan jiiJ ;rg '{i (Scroll of the Returning to the
Native Place).
528
HUBERT SEIWERT
the groups which were regarded as heterodox and those which were not. And he
underestimates the differences. Take for example the teaching of the three kalpas,
which was prominent in most of the "heterodox" Qing sects. The whole complex
has no complement in "orthodox" Buddhism nor in the "old style" White Lotus
movement, although it did have forerunners in "heterodox" apocryphical texts even
before the Song dynasty.
Tlrns, if we are to draw a line of historical continuity which leads to the Ming
and Qing sects, lay Buddhism of the kind of Mao Ziyuan's White Lotus Society
would just be one historical source of them. There were other strands which reach
back to the unofficial Buddhist and Daoist millenarian traditions of the Tang and
carly medieval ages.
The distinction between "orthodox" and "heterodox" is admittedly not appropriate as the base for a typology of religious groups. However, the terms are
uscful if we describe how religious groups were perceived by the literati and the
authorities. lt is a worthwhilc question to ask, why ccrtain religious groups came to
be regarded as heterodox, even iftheir teachings do not seem to have differed much
from thosc forms of Buddhism which were regarded as orthodox.
Usually the Qing officials did not care too much for finding out whether the
teachings of groups were in accord with "orthodox" Buddhism. lt is true, in the
memorials of the Qing officials reporting the confiscation of scriptures it is often
noted that they did not contain any unlawful elements. However, that did not
prevent them from suppressing the groups and punishing their leaders. Obviously
there were other elements which made the groups suspect, above all their sheer
existence as organizations which were possibly part of !arger networks and intellectual traditions uncontrolled by the state. This applies already to the old-style White
Lotus movement of the late Song and Yuan dynasties, with their own temples and
rcligious leaders outside the system of officially ordained monks and registered
temples. lt applies even more to many of the groups during the Ming and Qing.
We certainly have to admit that many and probably most of the religious
groups which were active in China during the past six hundred years did not belong
to any organizational structure with more than local significance. This corresponds
to the fact that most of these groups also never occurred in any official document.
However, we have also to admit that many of the groups which were mentioned
in the documents actually had connections which extended not rarely over several
provinccs. Thus, it was not completely baseless when the officials suspected underground networks, even if these networks were not built for political reasons. The
historical lessons which the officials had Iearned taught them that in times of unrest
such structures could easily be converted into the core of a revolt. For the Chinese
officials, whose most important duty it was to prevent social disorder, it did not
matter whethcr these revolts basically had religious or economical or whatever
causes, but it did matter that religious groups with a network of supra-local commu-
HIE WHITE LOTUS TEACHINGS
529
nication could play a role in them. What is more, religious teachings had oftcn
proved their potency to provide the propaganda which was needed to incite the
masses.
From the point of view of the authorities the religious sects were therefore not
quite the same as any group of lay Buddhists. Ter Haar is completely right, however, in pointing out that their conception of a nation-wide religious conspiracy Ied
by a unified White Lotus Sect was not in accord with thc actual situation. But hc
seems to underestimate the differences between ordinary lay Buddhist congregations
and sects conceived as heterodox, some of which had an established leadership with
considerable local power and organizational structures which persisted for decades
and even centuries.
There are a few other points which could be remarked on, as thc weight
ter Haar gives to the religious affiliation characters as a sign for membership in the
White Lotus tradition, or his assertion that the religious groups he deals with rejected ancestor worship and disregarded the lineage. However, these are details
which would not much affect his general conclusions. I should rather stress that thc
objections to some of his interpretations, which I have articulated, are intcnded to
show that ter Haar's book is a substantial and stimulating work which deservcs
earnest review. lt is a study füll of weil documented historical informations and full
of inspiring interpretations. Even if some of these interpretations may bc challcngcd
by other scholars, his main thesis is weil founded and will give this study its placc in
the annals of the history ofthe discipline: Ter Haar is the one who has finally provcd
that after the sixteenth century there did not exist any significant sectarian tradition
which called itself White Lotus Teachings (Bailian jiao ). The "Whitc Lotus scct,"
which has so much attracted the attention of officials and historians, is a phantom
produced by the perception ofthe authorities and literati, and of their cndeavour to
find an explanation for the upsurge of religious groups which cscaped all cfforts of
political control. This is the message of ter Haar's study, and he is right with it.